Hi everyone, I'm trying to set up a website to do in my free time that would have MP3s and such on it, but as many know - most hosts don't allow MP3's to be hosted on their servers. So I've been looking around and talking with people, but no one seems to have any ideas about where I could host them (not a free site, I'd like to pay for it so they will allways be up). Then the nice people at Jatol.com sent me here, so I hope someone can help me out :) - This is my first MP3 site - but I'm hoping to take the downsides of other sites and make it all work out on mine ;)

I'd need quite a bit of space (I'm hoping for at least 2GB) and a decent amount of bandwidth (not really sure how much exactly...20...30GB?). Also - I'd like to have control over how many downloads a day, etc so I'd use Anti-Leech.com or some similar service to limit them in various ways.

Also if anyone has any suggestions for hosting I'd appreciate that, because I've spent like 10 hours (staying up till 5am some nights :() searching for one that would be good for me, and I just don't know how reliabe they all are. (I had FeaturePrice for a year a couple years back, and man do I hate them now - lol).

Thanks
Xavior

If you don't have explicit permission to distribute the MP3s then forget it, hosts just can't and won't take the risk.

If they are legitmate then I fail to understand why you've had such a problem finding a host. It seems to me either you don't have explicit permission to host these MP3s or your pricing expectations are unrealistic.

Expect to pay at least $30, and anywhere upto $80 per month for a decent host for 2gb space and 30gb bandwidth. You'll find fly-by-night hosts and "my mum let use her credit card to buy a 300gb dedicated server and now I have to sell it fast, so you can have 60gb and 5gb space for $20 per month... btw, I know nothing about Linux, but that's what control panels are for are they not??" :D web hosting "companies" offering you the world though for nothing..

Hmmm, but I really want one, lol. What about having the files hosted in another country that doesnt care? Does that not make a difference if they arent actually on my site? :(

And like I said - the problem isnt really just finding a host...I found like 1000 of them, but I want to find one thats reliable and fast...I spose everyone looks for the same thing though. ;)

Sure, go find yourself some space in a country that don't care that US companies will start chasing you the second you go live.

You have to understand that what you are doing is illegal.
First steps will be that your hosts will be asked to close the site down.
This is why any respected US, UK, French, German etc host will not take you on.
If this approach fails they will go for the source - you ready for that 7:00am knock on the door?

I expect your best bet would be a host in Russia, many "warez" and the like sites are hosted out there.

or alternatively of course you could stop being a thief and find something legal to do on the web?

Haha, well...when you put it like that it doesnt sound like such a good idea. I guess I just wanted a site that was better than all the current ones, I hate adverts and misleading linking - I dunno how they manage to do it then with getting caught.

>I found like 1000 of them.

Okay, tell anyone of them that you intend to violate the DMCA and ask if they would still host you?

Ask would they keep your address, ISP, credit card details from the authorities should a warrant for your information be presented.

Ask would they immediately terminated your account without warning should they find you violating the DMCA.

Even as a small site do you really want to get caught and end up with any of the following, 30 day prison sentences, $5000 fine, confiscate of all PC equipment from your home. And the "I didn't realise excuse" or "it was my users etc.." will not work, as ignorance is no longer bliss.

Put your creative knowledge to better use!

(btw, I'm not saying I don't support MP3 sharing, the majority of bands I listen to encourage it, but participating at a higher level is asking for trouble)

Well... like Jatol.com, for instance - I asked their pre-sales department about MP3's in a really long email and they replied saying that basically they cant allow MP3's on their servers (which I expected), but then I email back asking about remotely hosted MP3's, and they said that would be fine... :confused:

If you set up the MP3's to stream and not to download that would be legal. You would pretty much eliminate dial up users from your site though.

You can run Icecast or your own scripts without any legal problems as long as you can't download the media. I would advise you to look along those lines if you want to run a music site. If that is what you want to have set up then PM me and I could probably get you started on the right track. Streaming MP3's are going to burn up a lot of bandwidth though. Be prepared for that.

Downloading MP3's is a deal breaker for any reputable host though. Avoid that....

I did something similar at FeaturePrice, though I converted everything to WMA format because they refused to move me to a Windows server....even though it was the same cost (in fact, the same exact plan) as a regular unix one.

If you set up the MP3's to stream and not to download that would be legal. You would pretty much eliminate dial up users from your site though.

You can run Icecast or your own scripts without any legal problems as long as you can't download the media. I would advise you to look along those lines if you want to run a music site. If that is what you want to have set up then PM me and I could probably get you started on the right track. Streaming MP3's are going to burn up a lot of bandwidth though. Be prepared for that.

Downloading MP3's is a deal breaker for any reputable host though. Avoid that....


remember, there are costs associated to streaming music... I'm specifically talking about the fee's payable to the RIAA... and they're not cheap.

Fact is, Xavior, you're trying to do something illegal. You're going to have to find a host as shady as you... and deal with their downtimes, possibly ripping you off, etc... but hey, you're ripping off the artists... so all's fair, I guess.

LOL - everyones friendly here...hehe.

Actually that isn't correct mccuem.

The RIAA only covers the fees for specific performances and not the songs themselves.

You can obtain a legal BMI license for $259.00 a year that would permit the legal streaming of most popular songs. If you make more then $12,000 US off the streaming media then you go to about a 2% of gross revenues type of arrangement.

While I can't speak for Xavior's intentions your words do seem pretty harsh and certainly not all that accurate...

You can't expect them to be friendly on this matter as there are many hosting professionals here. For them, you are trying to do something not right.

Having a 5 years old website, I've gone through this matter,too, a few years ago. I realized it can be done as long as your site is not popular and has no decent traffic.

If you do find a host and get things going, once your site gets some traffic, some visitors will report you - ultimately causing your site to be suspended.

These days, I use real media and degrade the quality of songs and refer them to buy the real CDs and the like.

Originally posted by Xavior
LOL - everyones friendly here...hehe.

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Actually that isn't correct mccuem.

The RIAA only covers the fees for specific performances and not the songs themselves.

You can obtain a legal BMI license for $259.00 a year that would permit the legal streaming of most popular songs. If you make more then $12,000 US off the streaming media then you go to about a 2% of gross revenues type of arrangement.


So you're saying that the CARP ruling doesn't apply to BMI songs?

www.copyright.gov/carp/webcasting_rates_a.pdf

This indicates a minimum charge of $500 per year.



While I can't speak for Xavior's intentions your words do seem pretty harsh and certainly not all that accurate...

What wasn't accurate? The CARP fees? Maybe I was wrong mentioning the RIAA in that?

Harsh? Hardly. I called a spade a spade.

FROM someone that has run his own 24/7 station (Urban Hitz Radio) on Shoutcast.com and currently does at minimal times, it's easier for you to run your own station at this time. small business' have a 6 month stay until royalties are due and have amlpe time to file themselves a such. If you do, set up a websites with LEGAL copyrighted MP3's on it, do expect to be contacted by authorities, if u do NOT have a license (RIAA, BMI, ASCAP).

You will be much more successful if you opened your own station over at shoutcast.com, instead of an MP3 website.

As for someone seeing his site and reporting him, what business is it of theirs what he does with his site, if they r visiting? Why, because they wanna follow the rules of the law? what do they gain by reporting him? A sense of self rightiousness? LOL HA!

Let me tell you right now, the RIAA is a very HATED medium , and if someone out of the blue visited his site to download an MP3 tonight, his site would become the MOST popular site around.
That is, until the RIAA finds out about it, and we do have those snakes lurking around here, that's why I am telling u do NOT open your own MP3 website and discuss it on this board.

There are people here that would love to turn u in, becaus they feel it's their duty and it makes them feel bigger. Trust me, NO HOST here WILL let u host any MP3's on their servers. Remotely, yes, you CAN have a site that links to the other servers in the other country where the MP3s are stored.

GL finding a server in Russia.

Thanks,
Dave

As somebody who is totally against piracy of all kinds I guess I would be considered as one of those "snakes".
I do no see what right anybody has to rip off anything that they are not entitled to.
You want software - you buy it.
You want music - you buy it.

You can't afford the software/music or feel that for some reason you shouldn't have to pay for it then tough - what makes you feel you have the right to own it?

I have turned sites over before in the past.
No I don't go searching for them, however in the past I've downloaded what look like legitimate time-limited trials or badly labeled files from sites and they have turned out to be cracked software.
Also if somebody want's to publically announce that they love to rip off stuff and be a thief then I'll just report it.

I wonder if all those piracy advocates would think theft was still OK if their car was stolen or their houses broken into?

As for someone seeing his site and reporting him, what business is it of theirs what he does with his site, if they r visiting? Why, because they wanna follow the rules of the law? what do they gain by reporting him? A sense of self rightiousness? LOL HA!

It's our business because we want to maintain our rights.

You think he's doing nothing wrong, but people involved in that kind of activity are fueling the fire that is the RIAA/MPAA. The RIAA/MPAA, hated as they are, are a helluva force to reckon with. People that steal music and put it up on fly by night download sites, ftp servers, kazaa, etc., don't feel the fury of that force, because they're shady and hide. The people that do have to deal with that force are usually burdened with outrageous legal fees of trying to defend themselves in court when they've done nothing wrong, against the RIAA/MPAA as they go on their crackdown to stop illegal music/movie trading. These people who write software to watch their DVD's on their own equipment or convert CD's to MP3's to listen to in their MP3 player... these people do nothing wrong, but face the wrath of the RIAA/MPAA because of people who steal.

Simply put, these people who steal fuel the rage of the RIAA/MPAA (*regardless* of how silly or terrible an organization they are) and the RIAA/MPAA in turn hits law abiding citizens . It's perfectly proper for law abiding citizens to go after the music/movie thiefs.

The RIAA does not control the music licensing business! They can claim anything they like but you can tell them to go kiss off and they cannot do squat about it! All you need to run your own site is a BMI license. Period. That isn't ripping anyone off and that is as legal as it gets. Just because the RIAA can't get their greedy little mitts into everything is too bad!

I've been a musician for over 20 years. I've had music stolen and published by others. I have seen most of what's bad about the industry, but make no mistake it is an industry. It is a large lucrative industry and organizations like RIAA are the problem and NOT the cure. Corporate music companies are stealing copyrights from struggling artists at a rate that would make the MP3 market grow pale in comparison. It isn't about the artist or the creation of music it is about money and the corporate conglomerates that control it. The RIAA is a mouthpiece for those conglomerates. Who do you think gets the revenue for those licenses the RIAA claims you must have (but in actuality don’t need to have)? The artists don't get that money; 99 times out of 100 they had to sign the copyright over just to get a recording contract.

There is nothing wrong with a site that has music for personal use. There is also nothing wrong with a site that streams music provided a minimum of a BMI license is obtained. There is nothing wrong with operating a station such as Shoutcast as suggested by WebNET.

So don't dare sit and attempt to lecture me or anyone else on how MP3 sites are stealing from the artists. The majority of the artists never see any of the money you and the RIAA are fighting over.

You think he's doing nothing wrong, but people involved in that kind of activity are fueling the fire that is the RIAA/MPAA. The RIAA/MPAA, hated as they are, are a helluva force to reckon with. People that steal music and put it up on fly by night download sites, ftp servers, kazaa, etc., don't feel the fury of that force, because they're shady and hide. The people that do have to deal with that force are usually burdened with outrageous legal fees of trying to defend themselves in court when they've done nothing wrong, against the RIAA/MPAA as they go on their crackdown to stop illegal music/movie trading. These people who write software to watch their DVD's on their own equipment or convert CD's to MP3's to listen to in their MP3 player... these people do nothing wrong, but face the wrath of the RIAA/MPAA because of people who steal.

Don't put words in mouth. I did NOT say I thought he wasn't doing anything wrong! Nor did I say his site would be a fly-by-night site. I DON'T KNOW THAT. as for stealing music, the RIAA can't shut down IRC! IRC has long been the source of this type of stuff before Kazaa, MusicCity or Napster or whatever is out there.

Regardless, you need to understand, that this WILL contunue and continue and continue.... and there is nothing u or I or the RIAA can do about it!

The RIAA can't go after every sinlge person they feel is wrong, doing so, would SHUT THEM DOWN financially.

Bladerunner, wtf are u talking about? I have over 1,000 CD's and 500 cassettes of music that I purchased before the RIAA was banded together. FCC Radio doesn't buy ****, but can stream on the internet. If I have a license I should be ok to stream that music however I want to, regardless if I bought it or not, like FCC Radio ( BIG JOKE)

Comparing cars and MP3's are apples and oranges. The artists that record the music for the companies that OWN the music are being bamboozled! CHEATED out of their money, by their LABELS!

These artists are no more than slaves for the music industry. if the artists were smarter, they would OWN their own.
And for those that work in the industry that put the masters out on P2P before it's realeased, I applaud you!

If these artists knew the type of exposure they could get over the internet these days, they would be on our sides. The fact is, MANY of these MAJOR artists are COMPUTER ILLITERATE,:rolleyes: and thus, have been told that the internet is BAD by their labels. I saw this commercial that the RIAA had these artists do, and it was sad. They have been brainwashed. If Shoutcast was our local radio stations, these artists would make more times over what they currently make. Think about the variety of and number spins shoucast gives
different artists on the same station...REGUALR radio sucks!

But, then again, who now owns shoutcast? AOL-Time Warner (Part of the RIAA) (double-edged sword).

The RIAA is a BULLY, and they know that if these artists were to educate themselves , they (RIAA) would not have the power they now have. I could say more, but i'll let it rest here. Educate yourself on the RIAA and its tactics. Educate yourself on the Government and their tactics, it will all come together for u. :rolleyes:

Thanks,
Dave

Well said Dave!

FYI, Icecast is opensource and certainly has the ability to compete with Shoutcast.

LOL...

Watcher, somehow, I forgot about Icecast..not intentionally :stickout:

Thanks,
Dave

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
The RIAA does not control the music licensing business!


Maybe not, but it is the RIAA and it's members that are purchasing the laws the I'm concerned with.

All you need to run your own site is a BMI license. Period. That isn't ripping anyone off and that is as legal as it gets. Just because the RIAA can't get their greedy little mitts into everything is too bad!

I don't know anything about the BMI license. I'll give this.


Bunch of stuff snipped because it had nothing to do with what was being said..


I never said anything for the RIAA. The issue is that they, through their member organizations, do own most of the copyrights on commercial music. They are trying to protect their interest. This has nothing to do with Artist rights, or whether or not artists get paid, that wasn't the stance I took, don't twist it to make it sound better.



There is nothing wrong with a site that has music for personal use. There is also nothing wrong with a site that streams music provided a minimum of a BMI license is obtained. There is nothing wrong with operating a station such as Shoutcast as suggested by WebNET.


I've conceded the BMI issue for licensing streaming media, as I don't know much about it.


So don't dare sit and attempt to lecture me or anyone else on how MP3 sites are stealing from the artists. The majority of the artists never see any of the money you and the RIAA are fighting over.

Which is it, watcher? MP3 sites we're arguing about or streaming audio? Now I'm confused. Does securing a BMI license allow one to distribute MP3's as well? And again, who said anything about the right and wrong of the RIAA and their artist treatment? That wasn't being discussed.

I said 'thief' about distributing MP3's (commercial, RIAA membership owned assumed, as they own most of the pop music copyrights). It was later that you mentioned streaming, I mentioned fee's, you corrected me, I inquired more.

The guy wanted to distribute illegal MP3's by his own admission. Your arguing for streaming media and artist rights, different issues.

Originally posted by WebNET
[B]

Don't put words in mouth. I did NOT say I thought he wasn't doing anything wrong!


My fault, you didn't say that. I misread.


Nor did I say his site would be a fly-by-night site. I DON'T KNOW THAT. as for stealing music, the RIAA can't shut down IRC! IRC has long been the source of this type of stuff before Kazaa, MusicCity or Napster or whatever is out there.


You didn't say that, I did. And what does RIAA's inability to shut down IRC have to do with him doing wrong, and us 'self rightous law abiders' reporting theft?



Regardless, you need to understand, that this WILL contunue and continue and continue.... and there is nothing u or I or the RIAA can do about it!


Murders won't stop, either, but you don't run around condoning it. And since you can't stop it, you decide to support it?


Comparing cars and MP3's are apples and oranges. The artists that record the music for the companies that OWN the music are being bamboozled! CHEATED out of their money, by their LABELS!

These artists are no more than slaves for the music industry. if the artists were smarter, they would OWN their own.
And for those that work in the industry that put the masters out on P2P before it's realeased, I applaud you!


This is not the issue being discussed, nor was it any concern of the OP. Do you think he had any intention of "Protecting artist rights" by "liberating" their music, making it free to the world? What your saying very well may be true, and I happen to agree with you, however, that's not the point of this discussion...


The RIAA is a BULLY, and they know that if these artists were to educate themselves , they (RIAA) would not have the power they now have. I could say more, but i'll let it rest here. Educate yourself on the RIAA and its tactics. Educate yourself on the Government and their tactics, it will all come together for u. :rolleyes:

Tell me, Dave, again what this has to do with it? If you were a wife beating, crack smoking, alcoholic, and just a bad man in general, would that justify my stealing of your property? I fail to see how the RIAA being a bully has anything to do with the OP's right to post their copyrighted material up for download.

Originally posted by Xavior
Well... like Jatol.com, for instance - I asked their pre-sales department about MP3's in a really long email and they replied saying that basically they cant allow MP3's on their servers (which I expected), but then I email back asking about remotely hosted MP3's, and they said that would be fine... :confused:

haha nice. Just to clarify.

I quote:
Xavior: "if I were to get your hosting service, would links to other sites hosting MP3's still fall into that same category"
our staff: "Links to other sites would not be a problem." probably should have been crystal clear and said "links to mp3s on other sites would not be good", but hey....
Xavior: "you be able to recommend any websites paid or not that might offer me the ability to uplaod my files to them and then have their service distribute them?"
our staff: "As for another host, I suggest you post your needs on this forum: http://webhostingtalk.com. There is always someone willing to do anything there."

never said anything for the RIAA. The issue is that they, through their member organizations, do own most of the copyrights on commercial music Absolutely false!

What you fail to realize here is that the RIAA is a puppet with no power. Their objective is to keep the artist away from Internet exposure while at the same time convince the artist that the Internet is stealing money from them.
You think he's doing nothing wrong, but people involved in that kind of activity are fueling the fire that is the RIAA/MPAA The only ones that are fueling RIAA is the record labels. It's not the artist's money in question here it's theirs.
Simply put, these people who steal fuel the rage of the RIAA/MPAA (*regardless* of how silly or terrible an organization they are) and the RIAA/MPAA in turn hits law abiding citizens Hits law abiding citizens? <insert sarcasm> Well that makes them an organization I want to support and assist. </insert sarcasm>
Do you think he had any intention of "Protecting artist rights" by "liberating" their music, making it free to the world? What your saying very well may be true, and I happen to agree with you, however, that's not the point of this discussion...
No one can speak for Xavior's motives except Xavior. I was addressing your misconceptions of the legalities of streaming music.
(commercial, RIAA membership owned assumed, as they own most of the pop music copyrights).
Again that is a false statement. The Labels own the copyrights as most recording contracts require the artist to sign them over. RIAA doesn't own anything.
I don't know anything about the BMI license. I'll give this. Well I guess that we can add the ASCAP to the list of licenses you don't know about as they will provide the same licensing as BMI, albeit they are a bit more expensive then BMI.
The guy wanted to distribute illegal MP3's by his own admission. Your arguing for streaming media and artist rights, different issues.
It most certainly is the issue. I took Xavior's post as an inquiry. I told him that any reputable host would stay away from sites that download MP3s. I then gave him a viable alternative for distributing the music for his site (streaming and not downloading). That is the responsible thing to do right? We sure don't want to feed the RIAA any more fuel now do we?

mccuem.. it has A LOT to do with the whole situation regarding MP3's and u telling this dude that he is breaking the law bu having an MP3 website. We have to examine the entire picture involved in the issue.

Xavior, he is just determined to get his site up.......LOL..LMAO. I like that attitude, don't give up Xav...i'm on your side, but I don't wanna go to jail for you :eek: , so i'll stay over here :-)

Xavior, watch out what u talk to people about and how u say it, because they are logging everything u say and it can be used against u in a court of LAW. (what a JOKE) :-/:eek:

Thanks,
Dave

Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
Absolutely false!

What you fail to realize here is that the RIAA is a puppet with no power. Their objective is to keep the artist away from Internet exposure while at the same time convince the artist that the Internet is stealing money from them. The only ones that are fueling RIAA is the record labels. It's not the artist's money in question here it's theirs.


Pointless to our discussion. The RIAA obviously has the power of the labels, because it is the labels that own the copyrights, and it is the labels that comprise of the RIAA. Wouldn't you agree? The RIAA taking the Artists money is irrelevant to our discussion.

Read the beginning of the thread to see how it plays no relevence.


Hits law abiding citizens? <insert sarcasm> Well that makes them an organization I want to support and assist. </insert sarcasm>


Stealing is wrong. Period. The right to distribute MP3's is NOT the right of the OP. Therefore the labels are being wronged. They strongarm through the tactics of the RIAA, an organization of which they (the labels) mainly comprised are affecting me because of the OP's (and his like) actions.


No one can speak for Xavior's motives except Xavior. I was addressing your misconceptions of the legalities of streaming music.


First, the legalities of streaming music wasn't the case. That wasn't there until you brought it into play. When you did, I inquired on it to learn more. Then you two twist the whole issue to make it sound like I'm attacking streaming music. I only spoke out against him wanting to illegally distribute MP3's...

Second, YES, you can speak for Xavior's motives because he stated his motives VERY CLEARLY in his postings... Let me quote for you from Xaviar's postings.

Xaviar Said:
I'm trying to set up a website to do in my free time that would have MP3s and such on it, but as many know - most hosts don't allow MP3's to be hosted on their servers.

Hmmm, but I really want one, lol. What about having the files hosted in another country that doesnt care? Does that not make a difference if they arent actually on my site?

but then I email back asking about remotely hosted MP3's, and they said that would be fine...


It's clear he understands that what he's doing is wrong, and it's clear that he's trying to avoid the reach of the U.S. Law by stepping outside our borders to physically host the MP3's.



Again that is a false statement. The Labels own the copyrights as most recording contracts require the artist to sign them over. RIAA doesn't own anything.


Re-read the statement, it doesn't say that the RIAA owns the copyright, it says "RIAA membership owned"... i.e. Ownership belonging to the members of the RIAA.


Well I guess that we can add the ASCAP to the list of licenses you don't know about as they will provide the same licensing as BMI, albeit they are a bit more expensive then BMI.


The fact that we weren't discussing streaming, which you want to twist the argument into, means that this issue is moot, unless you are willing to state that the BMI and ASCAP licenses allow you to distribute MP3s? Is that the case?


It most certainly is the issue. I took Xavior's post as an inquiry. I told him that any reputable host would stay away from sites that download MP3s. I then gave him a viable alternative for distributing the music for his site (streaming and not downloading). That is the responsible thing to do right? We sure don't want to feed the RIAA any more fuel now do we?


I agree absolutely. I never objected to him streaming anything. I called him a thief over wanting to and having had distribute MP3s (and by his own admission, not by my assumption). When streaming was mentioned I questioned it *because* I obviously was mistaking on my understanding of it... that still has nothing to do with him distributing MP3's, which if he doesn't have the right to distribute, is illegal.

I did notice you said this when I was quoting the OP:


If you set up the MP3's to stream and not to download that would be legal.


This might be the cause of our misunderstanding. Are your references to 'distributing MP3s' legally referring to *streaming* the MP3, as opposed to distributing full file?

Would you say that distributing MP3s (full files) is illegal, and not covered under the licensing from BMI or ASCAP? Answer this question and that should solve our dispute.

Xavior, he is just determined to get his site up.......LOL..LMAO. I like that attitude, don't give up Xav...i'm on your side, but I don't wanna go to jail for you , so i'll stay over here :-)


What are your motives for condoning his actions? Because he wants to distribute material that is owned by RIAA members and you feel the RIAA is a bad organization?

What if he wants to host, and allow people to download, MP3s from a local garage band that isn't signed with an RIAA member label? Then is it okay? Then he's stealing money right out of the artists pockets, is that okay?


Xavior, watch out what u talk to people about and how u say it, because they are logging everything u say and it can be used against u in a court of LAW. (what a JOKE) :-/


You're right, what a JOKE that you would even make such a statement. We're discussing the issue that he brought to the board. No one said anything about calling the cops or the RIAA or anything of the sort on Xavior. Discussion and arguing brings an education.. For Xavior, maybe an understanding that MP3 distribution is illegal for a reason, it's wrong, and maybe he'll reconsider doing it... for me, a better, although not full, understanding of the available streaming licenses. There's no reason to jump with the insinuation that we're out to get him.

;)

Pointless to our discussion. The RIAA obviously has the power of the labels, because it is the labels that own the copyrights, and it is the labels that comprise of the RIAA. Wouldn't you agree?
I would not agree. Pointless to our discussion? Didn't you make this statement? :
remember, there are costs associated to streaming music... I'm specifically talking about the fee's payable to the RIAA... and they're not cheap.
Seems to me you are implying that the RIAA is the power behind the music industry and that, as I said before is "Absolutely false". You do not have to pay the RIAA a red cent to operate a music site. Stealing is wrong. Period. The right to distribute MP3's is NOT the right of the OP. Therefore the labels are being wronged. They strongarm through the tactics of the RIAA, an organization of which they (the labels) mainly comprised are affecting me because of the OP's (and his like) actions
I wonder if you are as concerned about ripped graphics as you are about music? I would be willing to wager that far more web sites have violated copyright with graphics and web design then they have with music files. After all, stealing is stealing right?
First, the legalities of streaming music wasn't the case. That wasn't there until you brought it into play. When you did, I inquired on it to learn more. Actually the first thing you said when I brought it up was that streaming music was costly, addressing the legailty of an expensive licensing issue. Also, if you re-read this thread you will see that I provided a legal solution for Xavior BEFORE your first post. Your very first comment addressed streaming music and the expense of it which was incorrect. Then you continued making statements directed at streaming music that were incorrect, such as the CARP statement. So the legalities of streaming music were brought up by YOU!

I'll finish this discussion by saying this. There are certainly inexpensive legal ways to provide music on your web site. If you take the right steps you can operate a completely legal streaming music channel from your web site using an Open Source script. Now if web hosts would make the right recommendations to their prospective clients in advance, they can resolve most of the garbage. They can have a new client that uses a great deal of bandwidth operating a legal site. They would also be assisting an Artist who may very well appreciate the exposure they get. After all exposure is the only reason they go to a Label anyway.

The RIAA thinks the DMCA is their own legislation to manipulate as they please. Well I have a few more letters for the RIAA....KMA!

I would not agree. Pointless to our discussion? Didn't you make this statement? :


You missed this part of your statement that is, in fact, pointless to our discussion:


It's not the artist's money in question here it's theirs.



Seems to me you are implying that the RIAA is the power behind the music industry and that, as I said before is "Absolutely false". You do not have to pay the RIAA a red cent to operate a music site.


Absolutely that is what I'm saying. When the RIAA is an organization the consists of the record labels. Their Mission statement's first paragraph is :


The Recording Industry Association of America is the trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry. Its mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality. Its members are the record companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 90% of all legitimate sound recordings produced and sold in the United States.


emphasis mine

Hmm. Sounds like the legal strongarm to me. Not to mention their pushing of the DMCA and the CBDTPA.


I wonder if you are as concerned about ripped graphics as you are about music? I would be willing to wager that far more web sites have violated copyright with graphics and web design then they have with music files. After all, stealing is stealing right?


Correct. Stealing of any type is wrong. However, the key difference, and the difference in my attitude towards each, is there isn't a group out there making laws against law abiding citizens, stripping our rights to use our graphics how we see fit. There is one for the music industry.


Actually the first thing you said when I brought it up was that streaming music was costly, addressing the legailty of an expensive licensing issue. Also, if you re-read this thread you will see that I provided a legal solution for Xavior BEFORE your first post. Your very first comment addressed streaming music and the expense of it which was incorrect. Then you continued making statements directed at streaming music that were incorrect, such as the CARP statement. So the legalities of streaming music were brought up by YOU!


The statement on the legality of what he was doing, and the expense of licensing were two seperate statements, not both directed at streaming. I've never made a statement that streaming was illegal, you've twisted the whole damn argument to always mean streaming. My CARP "statement" wasn't a statement, it was a QUESTION, as indicated by the QUESTION mark (?). But alas, it doesn't matter.

I've asked you several questions in my previous posts to try and clear up the argument, as it's obvious we're arguing different issues. You ignored these questions, presumably because:

A) You don't want to argue the actual issue, or
B) You aren't reading the posts, just spouting.

In either case, I agree with you on the streaming. Pay the license fee, stream legally. The original argument that I was taking was on distributing MP3's and had nothing to do with streaming.

Is RIAA international or just for the US?

Linking to illegal files of any kind is usually not permited by a host.
Linking to a site with illegal content might be OK, but not if it's for people so use the content, just as examples of "bad guys".

My very first post I made this statement:
If you set up the MP3's to stream and not to download that would be legal.......Downloading MP3's is a deal breaker for any reputable host though. Avoid that....
I wasn't avoiding your question I was tired of repeating the answer. Since I made that statement from my very first post and you quoted it later on I assumed you realized I made it clear that downloading MP3s is not the right path to take.
So here it is again. Downloading MP3s is not the right way to go to provide music on your site!
Absolutely that is what I'm saying. When the RIAA is an organization the consists of the record labels. Their Mission statement's first paragraph is : They can say anything they like, it doesnt make it true. Try reading the NAMBLA mission statement and then tell me you believe that as well. RIAA does NOT have the artist's interests on their agenda as clearly demonstrated by their actions. I strongly suggest that you see what they have done and are responsible for before you make such a statement. Correct. Stealing of any type is wrong. However, the key difference, and the difference in my attitude towards each, is there isn't a group out there making laws against law abiding citizens, stripping our rights to use our graphics how we see fit. There is one for the music industry. Well your ignorance of the organizations does not mean they don't exist and are actively attempting to wreak havoc on the innocents. Just look at what Unisys is doing with the LZW algorithim. If you don't know what they are doing, I'll just leave it at the fact you can get a bill one day for $5000.00 from them and have to pay it or provide proof your GIF's were made with a licensed product.

Very few files are actually illegal reptilian. It's their use that makes them illegal. You still need the MP3 to stream the music so that file is not illegal. It becomes illegal if you provide it for download without permission. Do you realize I can have any MP3's I want on my site as long as the access is only provided for friends and family? That makes it non-public and perfectly legal. That is why small sites can "get away with it" and has nothing to with being shady or hiding.


One of my favorite movie quotes:
"The most valuable commodity I know of, is information"

Since I made that statement from my very first post and you quoted it later on I assumed you realized I made it clear that downloading MP3s is not the right path to take.
So here it is again. Downloading MP3s is not the right way to go to provide music on your site!


Good enough. Then I'm done.